I was not there at that meeting. And now as the person in charge, I must say something.
Not publicly disclosing that your about to do a hack on the group is just wrong. And this forum is open for anyone to talk about what goes on at a meeting. If only one person knew about what you did, and never disclosed it, it would have ended there. And from what I understand is that the issue was brought up AT the meeting with everyone. That leaves it open to discussion here in this forum. That thread was a good thread about ethical discloses and hacking. Was the discussion slander towards Dan? no. From what I understand, it was all true. Thats my 2c. -- Trevor Benedict On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:02 AM, David Kaiser <[email protected]> wrote: > To members of the "linuxusers" list... > > I feel obligated to explain the e-mail that I am replying to. Several of > you were in attendance at the SRCLE meeting on December 27, 2008, and > witnessed first-hand the events which transpired. Most of you read the > discussion that started on December 28, 2008 where nearly all of us > participated in an open discussion about the legality and ethics of > someone who had attended that meeting. We are now being accused of > libel for because of statements made in these discussions on that e-mail > thread. > > Our discussion on the mailing list starting December 28, 2008 has already > helped many of our members understand the issues around MITM attacks, > and I know several of you have talked to me at LUG meetings about things > related to DNS security, and also many of you at SCALE this year went > through the process of understanding SSL certificates and how they work. > > We encourage each of you to continue to ask questions about matters > related to security and to continue to keep our forum and mailing list > open and transparent as we have since we started. > > If you have questions related to this matter, please feel free to discuss > or ask Roger or I. > > Thanks, > > David > > > --- Original Message --- > Date: 7/20/2009 > From: "Roger E. Rustad, Jr." <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: SocalLinux.org public forum messages > > > Dan, > > On 7/13/09, you accused David and me of libel and threatened legal action > if > we did not remove specific verbiage from the email thread "Dan Tentler's > script kiddie antics last night" beginning 12/27/08. > > In response to your email, David and I would like to confirm the following > set of events and remind you of what went on on the evening of 12/27/08 at > It's a Grind coffee shop in Murrieta, CA. > > On 12/27/08, > > --you attended a SoCal Linux user group ("LUG") meeting at It's a Grind > Coffee in Murrieta, CA. > --you interfered with the regular and expected usage of the wireless > router > provided by It's A Grind Coffee with full knowledge that LUG members (and > other It's A Grind patrons who were not LUG members) were connected to > and > using the wireless router. > --you issued false ARP update statements, for the purpose of spoofing all > users of the router to use your Macbook as the router, and you did not > disclose to the users of the wireless network that you were doing this > spoofing > --since your Macbook was the proverbial "man in the middle" of all > communications at that point, you used a program, such as ettercap plus > additional tools, to capture TCP packets which were passing through the > spoofed network, and you did not disclose to the users of the wireless > network that you were capturing their information contained in the TCP > packets. > --you ran a program, such as ettercap plus additional tools which were > designed to intercept connections on the spoofed network and interfered > with > the operation of secure socket layer (SSL) communications by issuing fake > SSL certificates to the requester, and you did not inform the users of the > wireless network that you were issuing fake SSL certificates to them. > --you used these software programs and tools to issue a LUG member a fake > SSL certificate for talk.google.com, and you did not inform this LUG > member > that you were responsible for issuing a false SSL certificate for > talk.google.com. > --by impersonating the secure site 'talk.google.com' (by issuing a > false SSL > certificate for talk.google.com), you obtained and stored information, > including a password from a person whose system was signing on to > talk.google.com, and you did not immediately disclose to this person that > you had intercepted his personal information > --you ran a program, Nessus, which is designed to find exploitable > openings > in a remote system, and targeted this Nessus program against customers in > It's A Grind coffee shop, including LUG members, and you did not inform > anyone that you were running Nessus scans against their laptops. > > --From 12/28/08 until 7/13/09 (the date you emailed David Kaiser and me > and > threatened legal action), you did not publicly address the LUG's > collective > concerns about capturing members' (and possibly nonmembers') private and > personal information. > > Please be advised that... > > --we discuss many issues publicly on the Socallinux.org listserv. This is > typical for a LUG to do, as one of the purposes of a LUG is to provide > educational value for its members, and to communicate with openness and > transparency. > --listserv discussions may be searchable via search engines, such as > Google, > as we do not block search engines with robots.txt > --discussions regarding security are often done online. LUG members use > the > listserv to exchange information and learn about all issues regarding > their > computers, including discussions in areas of security. > --SoCal Linux has freely discussed the events which happened when you > visited It's A Grind Coffee on the night of 12/27/08. > --SoCal Linux has freely discussed the ethics of your actions on the night > of 12/27/08. > --SoCal Linux members, in general, have not considered your actions on the > night of 12/27/08 a joke. > > Once again, we invite you to respond publicly to what several of us > consider > (at best) rude and (at worst) illegal. You are, in your words, a security > expert, and as a security expert, we fully expect openness and > transparency > when dealing with our group (something many of us do not feel that you did > on the evening of 12/27/08). > > You claim that we have committed libel, yet you have failed to demonstrate > the untruthfulness of our claims or explain how you are justified to seize > someone else's password without their permission and not expect us to > talk > about it openly. Talking openly about this, we believe, helps others in > our > group understand the mechanics of your MITM attack (as what you did was > not > for the edification of the group), as well as the legal and ethical > implications of performing this procedure without the express permission > of > your target. > > Regards, > Roger and David > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Dan Tentler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi David, Roger, > > > > It's been 3 days and I haven't heard from you at all. > > > > I wanted to inform you that portions of whats posted on > socallinux.orglegally qualify as libel: > > > > Rogers comments: > > > > (a) Not formally and publicly disclosing that he was using Backtrack to > > sniff other members' traffic. > > (b) Not immediately getting rid of another member's gmail password once > > he handed out a fake certificate and sniffed it with Ethereal. > > (c) Doing what he was doing secretly, rather than for the edification of > > the group > > > > > > > > And your comments: > > > > When Dan set out to steal people's passwords... > > > > > > Both of these blocks of text contain statements made by yourself and > Roger > > which are both untrue, and at best are speculation. > > This libel has come up in my day-to-day business. It has already cost me > > one client. > > > > As such I am giving you one week from today to remove the libel from your > > site. > > > > If after one week I am still able to access these threads publically I'll > > be coming back with with an attourney and taking this as far as the law > will > > let me. > > > > If this matter is not resolved by 7/20, my next communication will be to > > the both of you, via registered mail. > > > > -Dan Tentler > > CEO, AtenLabs > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LinuxUsers mailing list > [email protected] > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers >
